"wāw" in Arabic vs. "and" in English

[safdar.dushantappeh]

This article reminds the fact that "wāw" does not exactly correspond to "and" in English and ignoring this point might lead to some misinterpretations. I appreciate it if friends could verify the presented arguments and share with us their feedback.

I am also pasting the text of the article here.

NOTE: please bear in mind that this article does not argue against Hadith and simply revisits one of the its supporting arguments. There are many other arguments in favor of Hadith and the reader of this article might find herself agreed with the presented arguments and yet still believe in Hadith as a pillar of Islam.

"wāw" in Arabic vs. "and" in English
-----------------------------------------------

In grammar, a conjunction is a part of speech that connects words, sentences, phrases, or clauses. [1] Coordinating conjunctions, also called coordinators, are conjunctions that join, or coordinate, two or more items (such as words, main clauses, or sentences) of equal syntactic importance. [2] In English, "And" is one of the most widely used coordinators, which is used to connect non-contrasting items or ideas. [3] The closet coordinator to "And" in the Arabic language is "wāw" (و), and that is why the Quran translators almost always use "and" when translating wāw from Arabic to English. There are however differences in the usage of wāw in Arabic and "and" in English that could result into misinterpretation of some verses. In this article, we explain one of the usages of wāw and show that how it offers a different interpretation of some verses that are typically assumed to imply Hadith as a pillar of Islam.

1. Coordination of specific on general

In English (and many other languages) using "and" implies two separates entities. In Arabic however wāw also have many other usages. One particular usage of wāw that we discuss here is to fist mention something general followed by the wāw coordinator and then something specific that was already included in the general term. [4] In Arabic this is called coordination of specific on general [5]

An example of this usage of wāw is the following verse:

[Recall] when We took a pledge from the prophets, and from you and from Noah and Abraham and Moses and Jesus son of Mary, and We took from them a solemn pledge, (33:7)

in which Noah, Moses, etc. are obviously specific examples of the prophets, which are coordinated by wāw (translated as "and") from the general notion of prophets. There are other cases where detecting this usage of wāw needs more attention:

"whosover is an enemy of God and His angels and His message-bearers, including Gabriel and Michael, [should know that,] verily, God is the enemy of all who deny the truth." (2:98)

Here Gabriel and Michael are obviously specific examples of the angels and that is why in Arabic they are coordinated with wāw--and the translator has added the term "including" to emphasis on that. It is not hard to see that the other usages of wāw in this verse are also coordinating specific cases of "being an enemy of the God" as it would not make sense to be an enemy of the God but befriend his angels and his messengers! In fact the verse conveys the fact that being an enemy to the Gabriel and what is being revealed through Gabriel is indeed the same as being an enemy of the God himself, and these two notions are not separate from one another. The evidence that supports this understanding is the verse before in which "being enemy of Gabriel" is the expression that is used to refer to the deniers of the revelation:

SAY [O Prophet]: "Whosoever is an enemy of Gabriel" -who,, verily, by God's leave, has brought down upon thy heart this [divine writ] which confirms the truth of whatever there still remains [of earlier revelations], and is a guidance and a glad tiding for the believers-: (2:97)

This ambiguity in the usage of wāw could sometimes lead to different interpretations. For example in this verse:

Those who have attained to faith and do righteous deeds incur no sin by partaking of whatever they may, so long as they are conscious of God and [truly] believe and do righteous deeds, and continue to be conscious of God and to believe, and grow ever more conscious of God, and persevere in doing good: for God loves the doers of good. (5:93)

Some scholars [4] interpret "doing righteous" as a specific example of "being conscious of the God", as one would do righteous if she is conscious of the God, which depends on how one understands the principle notion of "being conscious of the God".

Here we review some other cases of wāw in Quran and show that in reading those if we consider wāw as coordinator between an example and its general form, then we would reach an interpretation different from that of the mainstream's.

2. Obeying the God wāw the Prophet

There are examples in Quran in which two imperative sentences are separated by wāw while the latter sentence is a direct consequence of the former and cannot be viewed as two separate entities. For example in this verse:

And, indeed, even before [the return of Moses] had Aaron said unto them: "O my people! You are but being tempted to evil by this [idol] -for, behold, your [only] Sustainer is the Most Gracious! Follow me, then, and obey my bidding!" (20:90)

The imperative sentence "follow me" and "obey my bidding" are coordinated with wāw in Arabic, and it is not hard to see that "obeying" is a more specific case of "following" as it would not make sense to follow Moses and yet not obeying his bidding. In this view, the interpretation would be that Moses telling them if they are truly following him then they should obey his bidding as well. In fact this particular translator was aware of this point and has added the term "then" to emphasis on that.

In the following verse also the two imperative sentences of "be wary of the God" and "obey me" are coordinated by wāw.

So be wary of Allah and obey me. (26:108)

But it does not make sense to view them as two separate entities as one cannot be wary the God and yet disobey Noah. In fact Noah is telling the people surrounding him that if they are wary of the God then they should obey him too. Similarly, we can see the same pattern in the following verse:

Say, ‘Obey Allah and the Apostle.’ But if they turn away, indeed Allah does not like the faithless. (3:32)

where the prophet is telling the people surrounding him to obey the God and to obey him and coordinates these two with wāw. Here also the prophet implies that obeying him is as obeying the God and thus names obeying him as a specific implementation of obeying the God. This interpretation is consistent with other verses in Quran:

Whoever obeys the Apostle certainly obeys Allah; and as for those who turn their backs [on you]; We have not sent you to keep watch over them. (4:80)

in which obeying the prophet is explicitly named the same as obeying the God, as they are not two separate entities.

Many mainstream translations of this verse however translate wāw simply as "and" in English in which this subtle point is lost and the readers are led to interpret the "obeying the God" and "obeying the prophet" as two separate entities, which does not make much sense. The mainstream interpretations justify this separation by interpreting "obeying the God" as obeying the commands of the God in Quran and "obeying the prophet" as obeying the commands of the prophet covered in Hadith. Using this interpretation many argue that even though Quran does not directly talk about Hadith as a pillar of Islam, it still indirectly refers to it since using Hadith is the only sensible interpretation of obeying the prophet for us how are living in many centuries after. This interpretation is however quite remote and as we showed above it makes more sense to not see these two as two separate entities and in that case there is no need for such remote interpretations to justify the separation.

Appendix:
Refer to this article for more discussion on whether Quran implies Hadith or not.
For further discussion about the scope of commands in Quran refer to the scope article.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_(grammar)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_(grammar)#Coordinating_conjunctions
[3] http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/and
[4] http://articles.islamweb.net/media/index.php?page=article&id=193981
[5] عطف الخاص على العام

 

[Shia Islam]

As a native Arabic speaker, I can find many other meanings for و than "and":
Here is one example:
والله
Here و means "by Allah"

And i must say that I have only surveyed the OP quickly...I am not sure that i have got the topic rightly

 

[safdar.dushantappeh]

As a native Arabic speaker, I can find many other meanings for و than "and":
Here is one example:
والله
Here و means "by Allah"

And i must say that I have only surveyed the OP quickly...I am not sure that i have got the topic rightly

Then it would be great if you could read the article and give us your feedback. It actually challenges some of the mainstream interpretations about Hadith being implied in Quran.

 

[Shia Islam]

Then it would be great if you could read the article and give us your feedback. It actually challenges some of the mainstream interpretations about Hadith being implied in Quran.

Much has been said about the Quranists. Even the most stupid ideas have their, but Quranists have almost no fans at all.

 

[mojtaba]

Thanks Safdar.

According to the article,
"One particular usage of wāw that we discuss here is to first mention something general followed by the wāw coordinator and then something specific that was already included in the general term. "

So, when Allah says in Quran, 'Obey Allah and(Wa) the Apostle' this means that 'Obeing Allah' is general which includes obeying the orders of Allah in Quran and the orders of Allah which are in the sayins of the Apostle, and 'Obeing the Apostle' is the specific part of that general term.

Do Quranists bring such this articles to defend from their belief?!!!

Allah says,
...يخربون بيوتهم بأيديهم
They destroy their homes whith their hands...

 

[safdar.dushantappeh]

According to the article,
"One particular usage of wāw that we discuss here is to first mention something general followed by the wāw coordinator and then something specific that was already included in the general term. "

So, when Allah says in Quran, 'Obey Allah and(Wa) the Apostle' this means
that 'Obeing Allah' is general which includes obeying the orders of Allah in Quran and the orders of Allah which are in the sayins of the Apostle,
and 'Obeing the Apostle' is the specific part of that general term.

Mojtaba, I find your interpretation very remote. I guess it would help if we ask ourselves that why the general case and the specific case are coordinated together in this verse. To me it makes sense because it tells the people surrounding the prophet that obeying his commends (the specific form) is as obeying the God (the general form). In other words, if they truly want to be obedience to the God they should be obedient to the prophet as well, as it would not make sense if they claim being obedience of the God and yet disobey the commands of his prophet. As the article explains, this interpretation is consistent with other verses in Quran:
Whoever obeys the Apostle certainly obeys Allah; and as for those who turn their backs [on you]; We have not sent you to keep watch over them. (4:80)

Do Quranists bring such this articles to defend from their belief?!!!

I do not know. You might want to ask themselves. I am an individual like you who was born into one of these corrupted religious cultures. Then I started reading Quran by myself and I found it inconsistent with what the scholars are introducing as Islam. Most importantly reading Quran lead me to believe that Hadith is not part of Islam. Then I looked around and realized that I am not alone and there are many Muslims who independently managed to get guided by Quran and break free from the corrupted religious culture that they were born into. I realized that they use the term Quranist to refer to themselves. I find differences between my understandings and some of theirs but I guess you could also label me as Quranist as well. But to answer your question, I cannot speak on their behalf and tell you that how they argue.

 

[Union]

Mojtaba, I find your interpretation very remote. I guess it would help if we ask ourselves that why the general case and the specific case are coordinated together in this verse. To me it makes sense because it tells the people surrounding the prophet that obeying his commends (the specific form) is as obeying the God (the general form). In other words, if they truly want to be obedience to the God they should be obedient to the prophet as well, as it would not make sense if they claim being obedience of the God and yet disobey the commands of his prophet. As the article explains, this interpretation is consistent with other verses in Quran:
Whoever obeys the Apostle certainly obeys Allah; and as for those who turn their backs [on you]; We have not sent you to keep watch over them. (4:80)

This explanation is the best - linguistically and rationally . Thanks to bring it here .

I do not know. You might want to ask themselves. I am an individual like you who was born into one of these corrupted religious cultures. Then I started reading Quran by myself and I found it inconsistent with what the scholars are introducing as Islam. Most importantly reading Quran lead me to believe that Hadith is not part of Islam. Then I looked around and realized that I am not alone and there are many Muslims who independently managed to get guided by Quran and break free from the corrupted religious culture that they were born into. I realized that they use the term Quranist to refer to themselves. I find differences between my understandings and some of theirs but I guess you could also label me as Quranist as well. But to answer your question, I cannot speak on their behalf and tell you that how they argue.

'Quranist' is the name given by Shia and Sunni to the people who follow Qur'an only as they love to see people creating sects in Islam . Those who follow the Qur'an only refer themselves as 'Muslim' as taught and emphasized in Qur'an . Dividing and creating sects in religion is the favorite trait of the enemies of Islam , you know .

 

[mojtaba]

Mojtaba, I find your interpretation very remote. I guess it would help if we ask ourselves that why the general case and the specific case are coordinated together in this verse. To me it makes sense because it tells the people surrounding the prophet that obeying his commends (the specific form) is as obeying the God (the general form). In other words, if they truly want to be obedience to the God they should be obedient to the prophet as well, as it would not make sense if they claim being obedience of the God and yet disobey the commands of his prophet. As the article explains, this interpretation is consistent with other verses in Quran:
Whoever obeys the Apostle certainly obeys Allah; and as for those who turn their backs [on you]; We have not sent you to keep watch over them. (4:80)

So, obeying the orders of Allah which are in the sayings of Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him and his pure progeny), but are not in Quran, is obligatory to all the Muslims.

The verse, 'Whoever obeys the Apostle certainly obeys Allah' says that we as Muslims must obey the sayings and orders of Apostle(sawaws), just like we must obey the orders of Allah Ta'ala. Because, we can find the orders of Allah in Quran(syings of Allah) and also, in the sayings of Apostle(sawaws).

I do not know. You might want to ask themselves. I am an individual like you who was born into one of these corrupted religious cultures. Then I started reading Quran by myself and I found it inconsistent with what the scholars are introducing as Islam. Most importantly reading Quran lead me to believe that Hadith is not part of Islam. Then I looked around and realized that I am not alone and there are many Muslims who independently managed to get guided by Quran and break free from the corrupted religious culture that they were born into. I realized that they use the term Quranist to refer to themselves. I find differences between my understandings and some of theirs but I guess you could also label me as Quranist as well. But to answer your question, I cannot speak on their behalf and tell you that how they argue.

I have investigated Holy Quran hard, so I have read Quran, itself frequently, maybe 10 times or even more, then I have read Tafseer Al-Mizan fi Tafseer Al-Quran by Allama Taba Tabaii[ a Shi'i Mufassir that only used Quranic verses to interpret Quran], Tafseer Tasnim by Ayatullah Jawadi Amooli[ a Shi'i Mufassir that only uses Quranic verses to tnterpret Quran], Tafseer Nemooneh by Ayatullah Makarem Shirazi, Tafseer Noor by Hujjatul Islam Qera'ati and many articles about the meanings of Quran.

But, on contrary what you have found, I have not concluded that what Shia eminent scholars says is contrary to Holy Quran.

Good luck Safdar!